RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,799
Posts: 5,325,829
Members: 24,549
Currently online: 483
Newest member: mosaicq

TrekToday headlines

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3

Cho: More On Selfie
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 21 2014, 08:29 PM   #76
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

Universal Health Care to many would be more akin to something like the NHS (UK) rather than the PPACA (US).
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2014, 08:53 PM   #77
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

AverageWriter wrote: View Post
We've had at least one attempt by Federation leadership at intentional genocide of an entire sentient species.
This would go towards what I was referring to in term of the Federation being capable of making pragmatic decisions in their own best interests. The decision of the Federation Council to withhold the cure for the sickness that the Founders were infected with would be a example of a pragmatic (and imho a correct) decision.

MacLeod wrote: View Post
Universal Health Care to many would be more akin to something like the NHS (UK) rather than the PPACA (US).
And as a adult your inclusion is a matter of choice, or is your inclusion out of your hands?

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2014, 10:07 PM   #78
QuarkforNagus
Lieutenant
 
QuarkforNagus's Avatar
 
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Simply making a honest days living and a nice profit isn't a form of greed, and that goes for medical practitioners and the businesses they work for too.

I understand now! You mean the way police officers and firefighters work, right?
QuarkforNagus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2014, 01:56 AM   #79
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

^ They would be examples yes.

In Seattle, police recruits make $26 per hour, once they become sworn police officers it jumps to $33 per hour, after four and a half years it's $43 per hour. The starting salary for a fire recruit is $65,000 per year (39,000 British pounds). Add lot's of benefits on top of that (plus firefighters have groupies).

These people work hard and are paid accordingly, there's nothing wrong or greedy with them making money.

It's the same story in other cities and with private contract police agencies, private fire departments, and numerous security firms across the country. Their jobs can be risky, no one reasonably expects them to work for free. In a hypothetical future, how would we get people to consistently show up for a dangerous job, when the guy up the street goes to the beach everyday for the same money?

In America even volunteer firefighters are compensated during the time they are responding to an emergency scene.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2014, 03:38 AM   #80
QuarkforNagus
Lieutenant
 
QuarkforNagus's Avatar
 
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

Yes, the way fire fighters and cops list their rates at their stations and only protect those who can afford to pay them directly...

There's a reason that governments fund some services. Because they believe that the health of its individuals is a public good that must be maintained. Just the way they believe that the cost of a justice system to protect property rights is best left in the public sphere and don't just leave it to private individuals to decide matters of legal consequence.

Out of curiosity, have you ever lived in a country with socialized health care? You seem to know a lot about what's wrong with it.
QuarkforNagus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2014, 03:41 AM   #81
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

Brazil.






T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2014, 04:42 AM   #82
PhoenixClass
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

AverageWriter wrote: View Post
"This is getting a little bit beyond just economics but go ahead, describe your examples. I am interested to hear your argument."
I think economics is at the very heart of this. Earth woes at this point in time almost inevitably are a result of economic imbalance- lack of finances, lack of resources, the imbalance of such end up creating conflict. War is inevitably the result of such a situation, and yet even with the global conflicts we are facing, the planet still manages to maintain somewhat of a semblance of rationality. You might mention religion- but bear in mind that the current "religious" conflict on our planet is actually a residual of the nonreligious capitalist vs. communist proxy wars fought in prior decades.

The Federation, on the other hand, seems to be constantly getting into wars with every single other power. In the TOS/TNG era alone (not counting the Dominion wars) we've gotten into long, drawn out conflicts with, at the very least, the Romulans, the Klingons, the Cardassians, the Sheliak, the Tholians- we're talking wars with some of the most important powers extant in the quadrant. While doing it we've ignored starvation, chaos, rape gangs and violence on our own human colonies, we allowed a Starfleet officer to intentionally poison an entire planet's atmosphere with literally no repercussions. We've had at least one attempt by Federation leadership at intentional genocide of an entire sentient species.

I would like to close by quoting Quark, one of the most intelligent, realistic individuals I am aware of in Star Trek-
"Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, Nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people... will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces. Look in their eyes."
The examples of wars do not suport your argument. The Federation has never been at war with the Sheliak. There have been confrontations with the Tholians, some of which involved combat, but no wars (in the sense of a more drawn out conflict). There has been no war with the Romulans since the 22nd century (it was the Romulans who were trying to destabilize the Alpha Quadrant, thus implying that it was the Romulans who started the war), although again there were isolated confrontations.

That leaves us with two long term conflicts, the Klingons and Cardassians. Things got off to a bad start with the Klingons seemingly due to a series of misunderstandings;in Kirk's time the Klingons invaded first.

As for the Cardassians, I don't remember it ever being clearly stated exactly what started the wars.

(I based the above mostly on Memory Alpha.)

Now, you said "long, drawn out conflicts" and "wars" in your post. Obviously the two can be the same, but not necessarily. In any case, what is significant is the cause of those conflicts, not just their existence.


As for the colonies, I assume you are referring to Turkana IV (if you are referring to other ones please specify). That plant broke away from the Federation in the 2350s, so it is not under Federation jurisdiction any more. even then the Federation did not turn a blind eye ; the Potemkin approached in the planet in 2361 but was warned off with the threat to kill away teams.

As for Sisko poisoning the planet: I also don't approve. It was never shown that he was punished, which itself is a trangression (taking the precedent of current laws of armed conflict). Importantly, however, it is not generally Starfleet practice policy to poison planets.

Which brings us to the withholding of the cure from the Founders. This is obviously very morally difficult. Are there any civilians or dissenters among the Founders, or is the race as a whole, like the Borg, attacking the Federation? That is a key question and I don't have a good answer. But they are the only two examples I know of where the Federation was dabbling in genocide and they were under extraordinary circumstances.

But on the whole, the examples you cited are don't demonstrate what you claim, are inconclusive, or are unusual exceptions. So it does not disprove Sci's point that the Federation is generally better than our current societies when it comes to ignoring suffering. He was comparing the two societies, not saying that the Federation never turns a blind eye.
PhoenixClass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2014, 04:43 AM   #83
Jedi_Master
Commodore
 
Jedi_Master's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

Still waiting for someone to tell me how every citizen of Earth circa 24th century would be able to be fed without the significant involvement of a strong central government.
Jedi_Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2014, 06:20 AM   #84
FormerLurker
Fleet Captain
 
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

I feel the need to call out T'Girl on this one, Jedi. If for no other reason than to read her explanation that a strong central government is indistinguishable from the kind of immense, overbearing government she advocates the dissolution of in the US, even though such a government doesn't exist here.

The fact is, goverment is bigger, that is, is comprised of larger groups of people, in conservative administrations. And they accomplish less, often because they're too big to control the excesses of their component members. The 'big government' of liberal administrations is usually smaller groups of people that accomplish more, and do better by their constituents, usually by controlling the excesses of the corporate wealthy.
FormerLurker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22 2014, 11:44 AM   #85
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

FormerLurker wrote: View Post
The fact is, goverment is bigger, that is, is comprised of larger groups of people, in conservative administrations.
You're wrong in terms of the size of government being determined by administration's political philosophy. Having conservative or liberal administrations isn't a deciding factor.

Here's the actual numbers from the US Government's Office of Personnel Management for total end-of-year civilian employment of full-time permanent, temporary, part-time, and intermittent employees. Also the numbers for uniformed military personnel. Data is for 1962 through the end of 2012.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-over...nt-since-1962/

Jedi_Master wrote: View Post
Still waiting for someone to tell me how every citizen of Earth circa 24th century would be able to be fed without the significant involvement of a strong central government.
In the supposed wonderful paradise of future Earth, there would be (imo) near total employment, people would be fed by them simply purchasing food for themselves and their families.

That some small number of people would need to be assisted is one thing, but if the majority of the populace need the government to feed them over a protracted period of time, that indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the economic system.



.

Last edited by T'Girl; February 22 2014 at 11:58 AM.
T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2014, 12:08 PM   #86
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

T'Girl wrote: View Post
QuarkforNagus wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
Simply making a honest days living and a nice profit isn't a form of greed, and that goes for medical practitioners and the businesses they work for too.
I understand now! You mean the way police officers and firefighters work, right?
^ They would be examples yes.
You mean the police and firefighters under whose protection you permanently live without choice?

So it would be under a universal single-payer health care system. The government pays for your medical care -- period, same as it ways for your police protection or your fire protection.

Jedi_Master wrote: View Post
Still waiting for someone to tell me how every citizen of Earth circa 24th century would be able to be fed without the significant involvement of a strong central government.
I mean, we're again running into a fundamental issue of scarcity. The Federation is such an advanced society and such advanced sources of energy that, in effect, the cost of keeping a human being alive has become so low that life is effectively free. In a situation like that, the resources necessary to sustain life could indeed become so cheap and commonplace that it would not be, for instance, necessary to have a significant involvement of a strong central government to ensure that everyone is well-fed.

I'm more inclined to suspect that a strong central government might have been necessary to ensure universal nutrition in the pre-replicator era, before the Federation developed more advanced energy technologies. Earth during its unification process, for instance, in the decades between First Contact and the launch of the NX-01 -- or possibly even during the TOS era.

FormerLurker wrote: View Post
I feel the need to call out T'Girl on this one, Jedi. If for no other reason than to read her explanation that a strong central government is indistinguishable from the kind of immense, overbearing government she advocates the dissolution of in the US, even though such a government doesn't exist here.
Don't mind T'Girl. Taking the obviously leftist and egalitarian, implicitly socialist, subtexts and values of Star Trek and finding a way to reinterpret them in accordance with right-wing, hierarchical, authoritarian political values is just her schtick.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Jedi_Master wrote: View Post
Still waiting for someone to tell me how every citizen of Earth circa 24th century would be able to be fed without the significant involvement of a strong central government.
In the supposed wonderful paradise of future Earth, there would be (imo) near total employment,
I mean, if your idea of "paradise" is the perpetuation of a Capitalist social paradigm, maybe. But that brings into question what "employment" means in a society where, again, the costs of keeping a human being alive have become so low that they are effectively zero.

In such a society, are you "employed" if you spend your days painting and exhibiting them at art galleries, but no one pays you for this labor or for these paintings? That's just one example.

Are you "employed" if you organize a theatre company, but you never charge for your plays and don't solicit donations? If you spend your days editing Wikipedia articles? Conducting and publishing scientific research for pleasure?

That some small number of people would need to be assisted is one thing, but if the majority of the populace need the government to feed them over a protracted period of time, that indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the economic system.
I dare say that the presence of any number of people who live in such poverty that they require assistance to feed themselves, indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the economic system. (Which is, of course, another way of saying that there's something seriously wrong with every economic system that has ever existed in real life, since they have all been predicated upon the impoverishment of some of the population for the benefit of others.)
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2014, 03:13 AM   #87
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

QuarkforNagus wrote: View Post
Yes, the way fire fighters and cops list their rates at their stations and only protect those who can afford to pay them directly...
That's actually happened a few time in some American municipalities, the fire department arrives, makes sure no one is inside the burning structure, prevents the fire from spreading to adjacent structures that did pay, but otherwise simply watch the building burn to the ground. It is rare through.

Where my sister lives the fire department is partially funded through levys voted on by the public, if they vote no then (according to the fire chief) response times will increase, stations might close, and the paramedic program could be cut back.

While not posted on the outside of their stations I was able to go to a employment website to obtain the Seattle police and firefighter's "rates."

If some police or firefighter's employers (either public or private) were not paying their rates, the police and fire personnel most likely would stop protecting those who previously paid them and have to seek employment elsewhere.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2014, 11:06 AM   #88
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

T'Girl wrote: View Post
AverageWriter wrote: View Post
We've had at least one attempt by Federation leadership at intentional genocide of an entire sentient species.
This would go towards what I was referring to in term of the Federation being capable of making pragmatic decisions in their own best interests. The decision of the Federation Council to withhold the cure for the sickness that the Founders were infected with would be a example of a pragmatic (and imho a correct) decision.

MacLeod wrote: View Post
Universal Health Care to many would be more akin to something like the NHS (UK) rather than the PPACA (US).
And as a adult your inclusion is a matter of choice, or is your inclusion out of your hands?


If Universal Health Care is so bad, why in 2000 did countries with it rank highter than the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_H...ystems_in_2000


Or what about another more recent report

http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data...care-countries

The UK ranked 14th, the US 46th and in terms of cost as % of GDP it's almost double the UK at 17.2% vs the UK's 9.4%
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2014, 01:23 AM   #89
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: "The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

MacLeod wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
And as a adult your inclusion is a matter of choice, or is your inclusion out of your hands?
If Universal Health Care is so bad, why in 2000 did countries with it rank highter than the US
I don't understand your response to my question.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.